The lead author is in women's studies, not real science.

I quote from their abstract: "...among a convenience sample...39% of people on gender-affirming hormones"

convenience sample means "I asked my friends on social media"

And 39% on gender-affirming hormones! Yes, I know trans is all the rage now, but it's not 39% of the population! It's a highly biased sample.

The "39%" is a reference to the percentage of those on masculinizing hormones with breakthrough periods, not the percentage of females on masculinizing hormones.

In this study in particular, the fact that there was breakthrough menstrual bleeding for trans men and others who have been hormonally preventing their periods for years was one of the particularly interesting findings, imo.

It's the anglo-sphere they've lost the plot. It's hard to take a study that splits data into white and the rest seriously as a scientific study. I was unaware that africans, South Americans and Asians were significantly different to "white" people to make a difference needed to be pointed out.

What exactly are they suggesting. That the vaccine was engineered to have a more negative effect on non-white women?

Medical outcomes are substantially and consistently different for different racial groups in the USA. It's in part a proxy for economic status. It makes sense to control for it.

Is it that hard to just collect data on economic status instead?

In any biostatistics project, we have to segment patient population into groups based on an amazingly large set of variables. race, sex, approximate age, approximate location, distance from doctor, economic status are just the first few. All of these can have an impact on outcomes that has to be managed.

Yes, a persons race does have an impact on outcomes regardless of economic factors.

Recently, a few conferences talked about us trying to ignore race and instead move to genetic haplogroups as (in essence) race was used just to get at these genetic conditions (from their haplogroup). Its too early to say if that will happen. I am guessing eventually yes but not in our lifetime.

Hope this helps.

Well the weird part here is it's separated to white and everyone else

I know of no variable we are trying to isolate with a 'white' vs 'everyone else' besides, perhaps, a hamfisted approach at trying to stratify over racism. Its very possible that the race of the healthcare provider has an impact depending on the race of the person receiving treatment, but I have no idea why they would make it 'white vs non-white' as the criteria.

I certainly wouldn't.

Skimming the paper results, it might have been dredging for a significant effect showing that white people are less-badly affected. "The vaccine has racist side effects" is an eye-catching headline.

I hate to be so cynical, but it's hard not to be.